Hello My quick thought:
As a general rule, I find mixing Markdown and TiddlyWiki wikitext not the best idea. My main use case for Markdown is as an interoperable format. If I were to mix Markdown and wikitext, then I could no longer be certain the document I create will be interoperable if I put the text through a Markdown processor. Also curious how others are using Markdown in TW. Of course I'm fine using wikitext since I've been writing in TW for so long, but I can see how some people don't want to have to remember yet another syntax. - Mark On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 3:41:32 AM UTC-7, TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > Recently there has been renewed discussion of "Markdown". > > My problem with it is both ... > > 1 -- A useful approach to markup by Gruber; > > > 2 -- And a huge complexity of variant implementations of Gruber's vision. > > > When people say TW "Markdown" is not full "Markdown" ... > > A -- Which variant Markdown flavour are they using? > > > B -- Which features of (their used) Markdown flavour do they need in TW? > > > Properly clarifying this would help a lot finally solve this issue better. > > It is likely only possible to solve the majority cases. > > I have NO idea what they are. > > TT > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/0d3a45cb-70a0-49d8-a438-61c16cacddd1%40googlegroups.com.
